Let's say Alexei Ramirez hits a scorching drive down the third base line. The umpire immediately signals foul ball. Alexei trots back to the dugout. The play gets challenged, and it becomes apparent that the ball should have been called fair and the call is reversed. What happens? Does Ramirez get first base? Second base? Does he have to run out of the dugout to first before the pitcher can get the ball to the first baseman? If he never touches first, can the manager of the opposing team challenge so they can try to get him out at first?

There are so many instances where the play stops because of a call and you have no idea what would have happened after the play with the opposite call.

De Aza is on 2nd. Viciedo hits a drive to center. The centerfielder traps the ball, but it is ruled a catch. It's not deep enough for De Aza to tag to 3rd, but he is leading off far enough that he could easily make third if there is no catch. The play is challenged and overturned. Does De Aza get to go to 3rd?

Did he bunt it foul? Why is he going back to the dugout? I understand your premise, but maybe he should be trotting back to the batter's box?

I'm in favor of umps just getting it right the first time. That is always the goal. But with 3 instant replay chances the ump can get it right or wrong but it doesn't matter because replay will "correct it".

In college football the refs have stopped making calls on the field because instant replay will make the call and it's destroyed the flow of the game and to make things worse the views the replay officials are getting are worse than the ref on the field. Too many correct calls are being overturned and too many incorrect calls are being upheld.

What some fans don't understand is that blown calls are part of the game and the debate and whining afterwards is what makes the sports interesting.

Let's say Alexei Ramirez hits a scorching drive down the third base line. The umpire immediately signals foul ball. Alexei trots back to the dugout. The play gets challenged, and it becomes apparent that the ball should have been called fair and the call is reversed. What happens? Does Ramirez get first base? Second base? Does he have to run out of the dugout to first before the pitcher can get the ball to the first baseman? If he never touches first, can the manager of the opposing team challenge so they can try to get him out at first?

There are so many instances where the play stops because of a call and you have no idea what would have happened after the play with the opposite call.

De Aza is on 2nd. Viciedo hits a drive to center. The centerfielder traps the ball, but it is ruled a catch. It's not deep enough for De Aza to tag to 3rd, but he is leading off far enough that he could easily make third if there is no catch. The play is challenged and overturned. Does De Aza get to go to 3rd?

He shouldn't have to continue hitting when he earned a ****ing hit, that's for damn sure. I'm so tired of the arguments about not fixing the past because we can't see the future.

Your scenarios will come down to umpire judgment. Just like in the case of fan interference, they will have to place the runners at the bases they think are appropriate. But that makes way more sense then allowing the incorrect call to stand.

He shouldn't have to continue hitting when he earned a ****ing hit, that's for damn sure. I'm so tired of the arguments about not fixing the past because we can't see the future.

Your scenarios will come down to umpire judgment. Just like in the case of fan interference, they will have to place the runners at the bases they think are appropriate. But that makes way more sense then allowing the incorrect call to stand.

Oh I'm completely for using instant replay. I just would like to know how they will address those plays. Maybe Alexei would have been thrown out going to second in my situation.

__________________
What is Mind? -- Doesn't Matter!
What is Matter? -- Never Mind!
-Homer Simpson

I'm a traditionalist in some ways, but ultimately the important thing is that the calls are right, not who makes them.

I like the idea of managers making challenges and there being a restrictive limit. I would have just said 2 challenges because no good manager is going to use one too early, but whatever number of challenges they'd decided on would be unpopular. It can be adjusted. It might have been wise to try all of this out at minor league level for a year or two.

It is inexcusable that MLB is 5-6 years behind Wimbledon (by far one of the most traditionally thinking organizations) and Cricket... a sport with plenty of time on hand... at least at Test match level. In the case of Wimbledon yes, gamesmanship takes place and some time is wasted but everyone accepts that the call is corrected if necessary and that is the most important thing. It's worth it.

The important thing to recognize here is that the Rubicon has been crossed and there will be no going back. That is significant.

In my mind we are not very far from umpires all having handheld devices that they can consult themselves almost instantaneously. The umpires should be leading this development because it's coming with or without them.

It is ludicrous to have situation where the entire world knows within seconds that a call is wrong but it is allowed to stand irregardless. It's fixable, so fix it.

I'd like to reserve judgment but am inwardly convinced this will be the end of baseball -- and therefore the world -- as we know it. The only bit of doubt in my mind is because this viewpoint is shared by Phil Rogers, whose head has been up his ass for years now.

I'm happy to see baseball finally take some action in expanding replay, but I echo the sentiments that say three chances is too much. If they want to disrupt the flow of the game as little as possible, give no more than two, just like in the NFL.

Oh I'm completely for using instant replay. I just would like to know how they will address those plays. Maybe Alexei would have been thrown out going to second in my situation.

I say they should only allow the minimum if the call is overturned. So for your Alexei example, he would get 1st, and that's it. No speculating on how far he'd have gotten if it was fair. That's kinda foolish, sandlotish. So it's up to the manager to challenge it if he feels Alexei won't get an extra base it if he gets more swings.

To summarize:

1. Alexei hits a foul ball down the LF line where the LFielder slips and comes no where near it. The foul ball ruling is challenged, then overturned. Ruling- SINGLE.

2. Runner on 3rd, 0 out. A hitter hits a line drive trapped by the center fielder, ruled a catch, leaving him down long enough for the runner to tag and score. The manager challenges the out call, and it is overturned. Ruling- SINGLE, RUNNER REMAINS ON 3RD. Still 0 out.

3. Runners on 1st and 2nd. A ground ball is hit to the 2nd baseman, he throws to 1st, runner is out. On the throw, runners advance, then the 1st baseman throws to 3rd to get the runner there. The 3rd baseman misses it, causing both runners to score.

Manager challenges the out call, and it is overturned. Ruling- SAFE AT 1ST, BASES NOW LOADED.

The game is live, and the umps have a job to do. They call it like they see it as it happens. It's sort of like performing without a net. I don't see the need to stop the game to determine if an umpire's call was accurate. The human element, as it's offered to, includes the umpires as much as it includes the players. I know I'm in a minority, perhaps of just one, but I just don't see the need for that much scrutiny for an entertainment event.

The game is live, and the umps have a job to do. They call it like they see it as it happens. It's sort of like performing without a net. I don't see the need to stop the game to determine if an umpire's call was accurate. The human element, as it's offered to, includes the umpires as much as it includes the players. I know I'm in a minority, perhaps of just one, but I just don't see the need for that much scrutiny for an entertainment event.

The entertainment I'm paying for is to see two teams of some of the best baseball players in the world play the game that I love. I'm there to see Chris Sale pitch, Adam Dunn crush a 500-foot homer, etc., I'm not there to see Joe West call balls and strikes or Angel Hernandez ump over at 1st base. Their job is to stay hidden as much as possible and to get the calls right so the game has some semblance of of legitimacy.

I agree that this system is pretty silly, but I don't see why anyone would actively want the league to ignore technological advancements that would make the sport better.